Commons:秀逸な画像の推薦

Shortcut
COM:FPC
This project page in other languages:
現在の候補へスキップ 現在の候補へスキップ 現在の除外候補へスキップ 現在の除外候補へスキップ

ここにある画像は秀逸な画像への候補画像です。 今日の一枚とは異なりますのでご注意ください。

概要Edit

推薦にあたってEdit

推薦者のためのガイドラインEdit

まずはじめに、『秀逸な画像ガイドライン』、『画像のガイドライン』をお読みください。

ここでは推薦画像の評価を受ける・する際の必要事項を要約して紹介します。

  • 解像度 - 200万ピクセル以下の写真画像は、特別な理由が無い限り却下されます。1,600 x 1,200 ピクセル(1.92メガピクセル)は200万ピクセルには届いていない事にご注意ください。
コモンズに置かれた画像は一般的なPCモニターのみで閲覧されるとは限らず、プリントアウトや高解像度モニターで表示される可能性もあります。将来的にもどのような機器が用いられるようになるかは誰にも予想出来ないので、推薦画像が可能な限り高い解像度を保っている事は重要な事なのです。
  • スキャン画像 - 公式な方針ではありませんが、Help:スキャニングページで各種様々な画像を準備するための有用なアドバイスが提供されています。
  • フォーカス - 通常、重要な被写体は全て焦点が合っていなければいけません。
  • 前景と背景 - 前景や背景に主題ではない物が写り込むと、それは“余計なもの”になり得ます。前景にある物が主題の重要な部分を隠していないか、背景にあるものが構図を損ねていないか(例:後ろの街灯が人物の頭の上から生えているように見える、等)を確認しましょう。
  • 全体品質 - 推薦される画像には高い技術品質が要求されます。
  • デジタル補正 - 見る人を欺いてはいけません。写真画像のキズ・ホコリ等を修正する、良い編集、故意に人を騙す目的でない限り、デジタル補正は一般的に歓迎されます。例を挙げると、色合い/露出補正、シャープ/ボカシ、遠近感歪み補正、トリミング(切り取り)等がこれにあたります。背景に写り込んだ余計な物を取り除く等のさらに大がかりな修正は、{{Retouched picture}}テンプレートを画像ページへ貼付け、修正した旨を記述しましょう。記述漏れや記述ミスがある等、主題を不正確に見せる編集は決して受け入れられません。
  • 価値 - 『全ての画像の中でも特に際立ち、最も価値のある画像』が我々の大きな目標です。秀逸な画像はそれぞれの分野の中でも別格でなけらばならず、故に次の点に留意して下さい。
    • たいていの夕日は美しく見えますが、そういう画像のほとんどは他の夕日画像と大差ありません。
    • 夜景は美しいですが、普通は日中に撮影された写真の方がより詳細を見せてくれます。
    • 必ずしも『美しさに価値がある』わけではありません。

技術的側面では露出『構図』『動感表現』被写界深度等を見ます。

  • 露出とはシャッタースピードと絞りとの組み合わせの事を言い、適切なトーンカーブが見せる陰影〜ハイライトが有用なディティールを描写します。これをラティチュード(露光寛容度)と言い、このラティチュードの陰影〜ハイライトの領域内において、画像を暗め、中庸、明るめに作る事が出来ますが、デジタルカメラ及びデジタル画像はこのラティチュードの範囲がフィルムに比べて狭いです。ディティールの欠損した影部分は必ずしも「悪い」わけではなく、実際にその様な効果が望ましい場合(部分)もあります。ただしディティールの欠損したハイライト部分が大きく面積を占めるのは良くありません。
  • 構図とは画像画面内での各要素の配置の事を言います。“三分割法”は構図作成には良い方法で、美術学校でも教えられています。まず、画像に水平線と垂直線をそれぞれ2本引き、画像を水平・垂直方向とも3分割します。主題を中央に配置するとたいていは画面に面白味を欠き、水平線と垂直線が交差する4つの交点の内どれか1つに主題を置いた方が良い画面になるでしょう。地平線は画面を半分に切ってしまうので、通常は地平線を中央に配置するべきではありません。上寄り、若しくは下寄りに配置させる方が良いでしょう。主たる考え方としては空間を上手に使い、躍動感・臨場感のある画面を作るという事です。
  • 動感表現 - ここでは被写体の「動き」を表現する手法を紹介します。動きのある被写体は止まって見えるか、もしくはブレて写りますが、これらはどちらの方が良いとは必ずしも言えず、どのような表現意図を持っているかによります。「動感」は主題と共に写り込んでいる他の背景等との関係で表現されます。例えばレーシングカーの撮影。車と背景とが共に止まって見えては、見る側にスピード感は伝わってきません。 なので撮影手法によって車は画面内で止まっているように写り、かつ背景をブレさせることでスピード感が表現され、このような手法を「パンニング(流し撮り)」と呼びます。一方で、背景と共に止まって撮られた高く跳躍したバスケットボール選手は、これは決定的瞬間の「不自然」なポーズになり、これも良い写真になり得るでしょう。
  • 被写界深度(DOF)とは主題の前側から後ろ側までのフォーカスエリアの事を言います。被写界深度は全ての画像で明解な意図のもと選択され、深い、または浅い被写界深度は、画像に品質を与えもし、また損なわせもします。浅い被写界深度は、主題を他の被写体から切り離し、見せたい被写体に注目を集めることが出来ます。深い被写界深度は空間を強調させる事が出来ます。広角(短焦点)レンズは深い被写界深度、逆に望遠(長焦点)レンズは浅い被写界深度が得られる傾向があります。また絞りを絞り込むと被写界深度は深く、解放すると浅い被写界深度が得られます。

グラフィック要素では形状、ボリューム、色、テクスチャー、遠近感、バランス、比率 等を見ます。

  • 形状とは主題に対する輪郭線、及び形状を言います。
  • ボリュームとは主題の立体感に対する品質を言います。立体感は横からのライティングで表現出来、反対に正面からのライティングは被写体を平坦に見せる傾向があり、不向きとされています。自然光の中でベストな光を得るには、早朝か、もしくは夕方の日の光が良いでしょう。
  • は大変重要で、強すぎる色合いは好ましくありません。
  • テクスチャーとは主題の表面材質の描写性に於ける品質を言います。表面材質は横からのライティングにより強調され、手に触れて伝わるかのような質感を与えます。
  • 遠近感とは、画像の画面内若しくは外にある消失点で繋がる放射状の直線、これに沿った形で現れる「角度」により表現されます。
  • バランスでは画像の画面内での重心が左右均衡か、若しくは片方に寄る等適切な配置が成されているかを見ます。
  • 比率では画面の大きさに対する被写体の大きさを見ます。一般的に、小さな被写体は小さく写真に表現してしまう傾向にありますが、相応しい撮影手法により小さな被写体を実寸とは逆に大きく見せる事が可能です。例えば、小さな花を大きな山よりも大きく見る事が出来ます。この手法を指して「倒置法」と呼びます。
主題の全ての要素を画像に盛込む必要はありません。多くの写真はそれぞれの個性で評価出来ます。すなわち、画像の色やテクスチャー等々により判断出来ます。
  • 『象徴性か妥当性か』 ー 『秀逸な画像』ではしばしばこのようなテーマで意見論争が起こる傾向にあります。技術的・品質的には出来の悪い写真でも極めて撮影困難な被写体を捉えた写真は、凡庸な被写体を写した品質的に良い写真よりも評価されます。もちろん撮影困難な被写体を写し、かつ品質も良い写真は極めて価値の高い写真と言えます。
画像は時に撮影者と評価者、若しくはどちらか片方の文化的な偏りが見られます。画像の意図は画像そのものの文化的背景により評価されるべきであり、評価者の文化的背景に依存してはいけません。イメージは人に語りかけ、そして慈しみ、怒り、拒絶、幸せ、悲しみ等の感情を喚起させる力を持っています。良い写真から与えられる心地よさには限りがありません。


画像のガイドラインを事前に読めば、あなたの推薦が成就する可能性を最大限に引き伸ばしてくれるでしょう。

新規推薦Edit

推薦に値する価値があると考えられる画像を作った、または見つけたならば、その画像に適切な説明ライセンスが与えられているかを確認し、以下に従ってください。

ステップ1:画像名(接頭Image:を含む)を下のテキストボックス内の文字列の後にコピー&ペースト、正しく Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:推薦画像名.jpg と記入されているかを確認し、続いて『作品を推薦』ボタンをクリックします。


ステップ2:ページ編集画面上にある指示に従い必要箇所を付記、ページを保存してください。

ステップ3:ステップ2で作成したページへのリンクをFeatured picture candidates/candidate listへ手動で挿入します。ページ編集をクリックし、候補リスト最上部に以下の書式で推薦画像へのリンクを加えます。

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:推薦画像名.jpg}}

投票Edit

投票には以下のテンプレートを使用します:

  • {{支持}}または{{Support}} (Symbol support vote.svg SupportSymbol support vote.svg Support),
  • {{反対}}または{{Oppose}} (Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSymbol oppose vote.svg Oppose),
  • {{中立}}または{{Neutral}} (Symbol neutral vote.svg NeutralSymbol neutral vote.svg Neutral),
  • {{コメント}}または{{Comment}} (Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentPictogram voting comment.svg Comment),
  • 情報:{{Info}} (Pictogram voting info.svg Info),
  • 質問:{{Question}} (Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question).

テンプレート{{FPX|理由}}を用いて、推薦画像が秀逸な画像の推薦に相応しくない旨を指摘出来ます。テンプレートの「理由」部分に、秀逸な画像には明確に値しない事の説明を書き加えます(可能ならば英語で)。

あなたが何故その画像を好むか、または好まないか、特に(Symbol support vote.svg Supportや(Symbol oppose vote.svg Opposeの投票をする際は簡単な理由を加えましょう。また署名(~~~~)も忘れずに。匿名投票は受け付けられません。

秀逸な画像からの除外Edit

時も経ればやがて『秀逸な画像』の基準も変わります。かつては“充分に価値に値する”と決定されたであろう画像も、その価値は普遍ではありません。ここでは「もはや『秀逸な画像』に値しない」と考えられる画像をリストアップします。リストされた画像へは、{{Keep}} Symbol keep vote.svg Keep 及び {{維持}} Symbol keep vote.svg Keep (=『秀逸な画像』に値する)、または{{Delist}} Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist 及び {{除外}} Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (=『秀逸な画像』に値しない)を投票します。

あなたが『秀逸な画像』の価値基準に値しないと考える画像があれば、除外候補として提出できます。除外したい画像の画像名(接頭Image:を含む)を下のテキストボックスの文字列の後にコピー&ペーストします。


あなたが作成した新規除外候補のページに以下を加えます。

  • 画像の作者、投稿者等の出所情報。
  • その画像の“過去の秀逸な画像への推薦”ページへのリンク(画像ページの「リンク節」に表示されています)。
  • あなたが除外と考える理由とあなたの署名。

次に、Commons:Featured picture candidates/removalを編集し、下記の書式で作成した除外候補のページのリンクを手動で最上段に挿入します。

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:除外画像名.jpg}}

秀逸な画像の候補での方針Edit

総則Edit

  1. 投票期間を終えた後、結果は推薦日時から数えて10日後(下記タイムテーブル参照)に決定します。投票期間は推薦日時から数えて9日と23時間59分です。10日、またはそれを超えた投票はカウントされません。
  2. 匿名寄稿者による推薦を歓迎します。
  3. 匿名寄稿者による議論への参加を歓迎します。
  4. 匿名寄稿者による投票はカウントされません。
  5. 推薦者票は投票へはカウントされません。支持は明示的かつ言明される必要があります。
  6. 推薦者は自身の推薦をいつでも取り下げる事が出来ます。推薦を取り下げるには "I withdraw my nomination" (推薦を取り下げます)と書くか、テンプレート {{withdraw|~~~~}} を加えます。
  7. ウィキメディア・コモンズのプロジェクトの目的は、全てのウィキメディアプロジェクト(将来的なプロジェクト含む)に於いて自由に利用可能な画像を集積するセントラル・データベースを提供することである、ということを忘れないでください。セントラル・データベースは単純にウィキメディアの保管庫と言うわけではなく、また『秀逸な画像』等のプロジェクトに応じた判断をされるべきではありません。
  8. 推薦日から数えて5日間支持を受けられなかった画像(推薦者票含まず)は候補リストから外されます。(下記タイムテーブル参照)
  9. テンプレート{{FPX}}が貼られた画像は、テンプレート{{FPX}}の適用後は推薦者以外の支持票が無い限り、48時間後に候補リストから外されます。

秀逸と除外のルールEdit

候補画像は下記必要事項に準じて秀逸な画像に認定されます。

  1. 適切なライセンス情報が添付されている。
  2. 最低5票以上の支持票を得ている。
  3. 支持:反対比率が2:1 (賛成が3分の2の過半数)以上である。
  4. 2つの同様な画像での異なったバージョンは同時に『秀逸な画像』へは認定されず、より支持票の多かった一枚を認定します。

除外ルールでは、投票期間、及びリストから外される期間は秀逸ルールと同じ期間を取ります。除外候補提出後5日間で提出者以外の Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose)票が得られなかった候補は、5日間ルールが適用され、候補リストから外されます。

常連ユーザーが推薦・投票の完了方法に従って、推薦投票を閉じることがあります。終了方法に関してはCommons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finishedを参照。

何よりも礼儀を忘れずにEdit

どうか、あなたが評価するその画像が「人の作品」であることを忘れないでください。「これはヒドイ」、「こんなのキライだ」と言ったような表現は避けましょう。もしあなたが『反対』に票を投じなければならないのなら、思いやりを忘れずに。また、あなたの話す英語は、また誰か他の人の話す英語とは同じではないでしょう。慎重に言葉を選んでください。

それでは良い評価を。そして、全てのルールは壊すことが出来るという事を忘れないでください。

関連項目Edit

目次Edit

秀逸な画像の候補Edit

purge this page's cache

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:New York and Jersey City Skyline Panorama.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 14:05:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have no problems with the crops, and it's great to see both the Jersey City and Lower Manhattan skylines together (plus Ellis Island, which should get a category and be mentioned in the description). However, a lot of the buildings feel washed out to me. I feel like this was a hazy late morning, not ideal for the shoot, but I wonder whether selectively increasing saturation could help. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:WLM - 2020 - Schloss Schönbrunn - Kronprinzengarten - 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 13:10:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Crown Prince Garden, Schönbrunn Palace, Vienna, Austria

File:The Arcades, Christchurch, New Zealand 04.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 12:47:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Arcades, Christchurch, New Zealand

File:Petite Venise depuis le pont de la rue de Turenne (Colmar) (2).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 12:12:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Iglesia de San Juan de Mata y San Félix de Valois, Bratislava, Eslovaquia, 2020-02-01, DD 78.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 12:18:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Church of St John of Matha, Bratislava, Slovakia
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question I really feel shrunk on both sides. Very tight crop. Possible more space around? -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks for the nom MB-one! I had to get close to the church to photograph it, taking a shot with 30 cables wasn't an option. Will upload a new version with a more "natural" look later today Poco a poco (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose With this much distortion, this one should not be a QI. Even without the distortion, I fail to be amazed of the photo. Just a church facade. —kallerna (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Heavy distortion, shade divides the facade in two, very tight crop - this is not among the finest on Commons. --Ivar (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment New version uploaded with more crop on both sides and adjustments of perspective and aspect ratio Poco a poco (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Knoblauch (Allium sativum)-20200621-RM-085344.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 11:26:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Bergtocht van Guarda via Ardez en Ftan naar Scuol. 20-09-2019. (d.j.b) 10.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 05:27:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Doors/Switzerland
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A decorative and funny door knocker. With wear spots in the paint layer. The shadow effect gives the photo an added value for me. Guarda was awarded (the Wakker Prize) for the preservation of its architectural heritage in 1975.
    All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support My father used to photograph door knockers in many countries, therefore I know many of them. This one would have been a showpiece for his collection ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 09:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oversaturated, highlights/shadows adjusted too much, no wow. The light is also too harsh. —kallerna (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Main path lined with stone pillars to the ruined Khmer Hindu temple of Wat Phou, Champasak, Laos.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 05:11:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Main path lined with stone pillars to the ruined Khmer Hindu temple of Wat Phou, Champasak, Laos

File:PK Thatta asv2020-02 img03 Shah Jahan Mosque.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 01:54:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dome interior, Shah Jahan Mosque, Thatta

File:Goodyera repens flowers in detail - Männiku.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 19:30:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Creeping lady's-tresses
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family_:_Orchidaceae
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Very tiny flowers of Creeping lady's-tresses, focus stacked of 46 images. The background is sky through the trees. All by Ivar (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ivar (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful light, nice natural background. The DoF could have been more consistent, still enough crispy sharp areas to appreciate currently -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · 01:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive, considering the size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Definitely unsharp even on 12 MPx and some CA all across the plant (reflexion). But i like thia back color, much better than that light green. --Mile (talk) 07:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Unsharp if this was a photo of large flowers, but they are tiny Mile. Please have another look. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Charlesjsharp I still think stack could be better, i have one in a similar size, manual shots before stack, the flower was on the hill (windy-moving). Unless pic was scaled-up !? APS-C might not be best for small macros. --Mile (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @PetarM: Nothing was upscaled. All my Nikon images tends to be a bit soft and usually additional sharpening is added. "Definitely unsharp" is imho very harsh assessment. --Ivar (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Ivar Maybe i should say "sharp enough", but stack could be done more appropriate. --Mile (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I may be missing something here, but the description implies these flowers are 5 x 7mm, but yours are 30 x 30mm Mile. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Charlesjsharp My whole flower was 30×30 mm, all that sqaured size. Means each white blossom was under 10mm. I suppose Ivar gave a blossom size, not the complete size of the flower we are looking at ? --Mile (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Mile: You are comparing quite flat inflorescence with the one that has hairy flowers. 9 stacked images versus 46, they are not quite comparable. --Ivar (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Ivar We won't get far here. But you gave me a mission, I will try to find this flower in soon future. I will try to reaffirm my objectives here. Maybe I will fail too, but let's have a try. --Mile (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Mile: Face-smile.svg You need to wait at least for the next summer to find this rare species in Slovenia. Good luck with that! Anyway, the asessment "Definitely unsharp" is imo not competent. --Ivar (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 09:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Mile, this kind of shots have limited wow to me, therefore I really expect crispy sharpness, which unfortunately isn't the case here Poco a poco (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Tallinna Tööstushariduskeskus 005-omblusklass pano.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 16:54:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

360° view on the Tallinn Industrial Education Centre sewing class

File:Tallinna Teeninduskool 009-kokalabor pano.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 16:45:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

360° view on the Tallinn School of Service cook's laboratory

File:Bossee-2020-13-msu-.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 15:00:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Church of St Sebastian, Ponta DelgadaEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 09:25:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Church of St Sebastian, Ponta Delgada, São Miguel Island, Azores, Portugal. The church, built between 1531 and 1547, is one of the landmarks of the capital of the island. I propose these images as a set because I believe that each of them deserves the FP star alone and because the set depicts this beautiful church from different viewpoints giving a comprehensive view of it (3rd criteria "A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints"). Note that there is already a closer look of the high altar that became FP and could have been added to this set. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Interested to see how this set is interpreted. For me, the images, high quality as they are, do not depict 'the same subject from different viewpoints'. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    The subject is the church and I offer different view of parts of it Poco a poco (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In the exterior image there is a car that is distracting and the "General view of the interior." there is a problem of distortion of the verticals, the upper part is stretched towards the sides (check the verticality of the columns) --Wilfredor (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Wilfredor: I reworked the image of the exterior view: the van is gone, I also improved the verticals. I've also made some adjusments of the interior view and added one additional image of the interior looking from the altar back to the entrance. Poco a poco (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Almost everything is fine but "General view of the nave back from the altar." has the same problem now fixed in "General view of the interior.", please, fix it too and I will support it. Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Wilfredor: I had already anticipated this feedback and rework the second interior image before I added it to the set, but I made now some additional adjustments. --Poco a poco (talk) 09:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Sigo observando el problema de las columnas en "General view of the nave back from the altar.", la parte superior de las columnas esta inclinada hacia afuera, esto es fácilmente corregible usando las guías en Photoshop. --Wilfredor (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Wilfredor: ¿¿cómo lo ves ahora?? si sigo sin atinar, ¿podrías añadir una nota? Poco a poco (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Distortion quite strong on the first image, looks like the tower is falling down. --Ivar (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Ivar: I readjusted the perspective of the tower Poco a poco (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Imho it's not fixable, because shooting point was too close to the church. --Ivar (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I was Ivar, indeed as far as I could and I also took the side further from the tower. The church is in the middle of the city and there are usually tons of people walking around specially visiting bars or restaurants nearby. I could manage this shot without people thank you patience and COVID-19. Poco a poco (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Amazing images, on the whole. I really like all three interior views and I think they should definitely be FP. The exterior isn't so clear for me, the van is distracting and I agree with Ivar that the tower looks like it's falling backwards. Cmao20 (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Cmao20: as mentioned above I addressed the mentioned issues of the external image Poco a poco (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks, I mean honestly it's an amazing set and I'm not going to quibble any further. Cmao20 (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The last two photos are unreservedly FPs to me. I'm not as sure about the rest. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I like all the photos and IMHO at least the first (now) and the two last really deserve the star, but I am not sure about the set idea. --Aristeas (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Tropidolaemus wagleri, Wagler's palm pit viper - Takua Pa District, Phang-nga Province (48238132136).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 08:55:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wagler's palm pit viper

File:Une tartiflette sortie du four.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 08:15:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info nominated by Benoît Prieur -- --Benoît (d) 08:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- --Benoît (d) 08:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp and appetizing-looking photo of the tartiflette. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No reason to have assymetic and 'tilted' tile pattern. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support per Ikan but I also take Charles' points. Cmao20 (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no wow. Kruusamägi (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose Looks very yummy and certainly good photographic quality, but per Charlesjsharp and Kruusamägi. --MB-one (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose +1. --Peulle (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Tūranga (library), Christchurch City, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 07:23:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tūranga (library), Christchurch City, New Zealand
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#New_Zealand
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by me. It's Tūranga, a new public library in Christchurch, New Zealand. The old one was destroyed during the earthquakes. It's usually quite busy around so I'm quite pleased that I managed to take this shot without cars and people. -- Podzemnik (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I may be a lone dissenter, but the front of the building feels too in-your-face to me. The right side has a decent rhythm and I like the design on the bottom right of the front, but I just find the building in general upsetting to view and not part of a great composition, although I'm of course happy that a new public library was constructed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The more I look at it the more that cropped tree on the left bothers me. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Plagiodontes daedaleus f. minor 01.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 07:06:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A shell of Plagiodontes daedaleus forma minor
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family : Odontostomidae
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Llez (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not really colorful like many of the shells you've photographed, but very nice details and very impressive, considering its size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not so colourful, but have a look at the teeth! --Llez (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, boring colours, but amazing internal detail. What is the purpose of the 'teeth'? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I suppose that it is an protection against predators, when the animal is retracted in the shell. In contrary to many sea and freshwater snails, most of he land snails lack an operculum, which has amongst others the same function. At any rate these teeth are very useful for taxonomists, for their arrangement (different in every species) helps to identify the species ;-). --Llez (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cmao20 (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ermell (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Gynaephora selenitica caterpillar - Keila.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 05:49:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gynaephora selenitica caterpillar
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Erebidae_(Erebid_Moths)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Focus stacked of 9 images. All by Ivar (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ivar, this isn't a FP to me, most of the water drops are sharp but the caterpillar 1) isn't sharp and 2) is hardly visible, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not quite at Sven's dragonfly level yet! A much higher quality of stack, but not the depth of field. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose The bar for focus stacks is getting quite high and I'm not sure this one is quite there for the reasons Poco mentions. Nice photo though overall Cmao20 (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Ivar (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Jeanette Scissum at Marshall Space Flight Center.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 00:02:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jeanette Scissum
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA/MSFC - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice photo of someone I wish I had already known about. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cmao20 (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Not an FP. Moon dominates and the file cabinet on the right is highly distracting. Face is not well lit. Seven Pandas (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Seven Pandas. Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @Seven Pandas, Daniel Case: I'm confused about the month-old face comment. She is African-American, and the photo was shot a little overexposed to try and get more detail in her face with the filmstock of the time, so I think it's as all-out as it could have been. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden:Her face doesn't bother me; I know we're asserting the main value of the image is historic. But ... I think SP had a point about how, if she's the basis for nominating the image for FP, it really works as one if she's only a quarter of the total image and not the most prominent thing in it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Maya skull fronp1p1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2020 at 22:14:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvmontuy (talk • contribs)

File:Steuerhaus, Memmingen, Alemania, 2019-06-21, DD 90.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2020 at 21:10:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Steuerhaus, Memmingen, Germany
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Steuerhaus, Memmingen, Germany. The building dates from 1494/1495 and was created for the administration of the finances of the city. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have the feeling that some people at the left are distorted (stretched horizontally), caused by the wide angle objective, also the arch at the right. --Llez (talk) 06:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    Llez I applied an aspect ratio adjustment, looks better now, thanks, Poco a poco (talk) 08:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice, and the forward-and-back motion is helped by the wicker chairs. Side point: It's funny that there are no flags in the flagpoles. In the U.S., there would be, but I understand the different historical consciousness of Germany. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Complicated! Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan, a really nice colourful photo. Cmao20 (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan. It's also faintly nostalgic to see people sitting in groups at tables right next to other people in groups sitting at tables ... Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but I've looked at this a few times now, and I don't understand what's so special about it that it should warrant FP status.--Peulle (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Peulle. —kallerna (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Peulle. --MB-one (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Peulle and right crop doesn't work for me. --Ivar (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Georgios Ntaviotis & Daniel Souček, U21 CZE-GRE 2019-10-10.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2020 at 19:00:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Georgios Ntaviotis and Daniel Souček in an internatinoal association football match of European Under-21 Championship Qualifying Round between the Czech Republic and Greece
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Association football (soccer)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me. -- T.Bednarz (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- T.Bednarz (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The scene doesn't speak for itself (why does the guy in the white shirt appear to be shouting at his hand, and why is the other guy not interested in the ball?). Also, the motion blur, on the hand and the ball, detracts from the image rather than adding to it. --Bobulous (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm sorry, but once you read Bobulous's !vote you can't take the picture seriously (In any event, regardless of the outcome of this, I think the image would benefit greatly from being cropped in from the left as that part of it adds nothing). Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Beilstein - Burg Hohenbeilstein und Unteres Schloss - Ansicht vom Birkenweg mit Abendsonne.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 19:35:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View from the Birkenweg to Hohenbeilstein Castle (on the top of the hill) and to the so-called Unteres Schloss
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It was not easily possible to use a tripod (I took this photo standing on a parking place, people and cars cruising around me ;–), I wanted f/10 to get enough DoF at 94mm, and so I selected ISO 400 to get 1/125 s in order to avoid camera shake. --Aristeas (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • IMO it would be nothing wrong about using, for example, f/7.3 and 1/50 sec exposure. Tripod? For god's sake, a Sony A7Rx user hardly ever needs a tripod ;-) --A.Savin 13:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I will provide a version with noise reduction in the sky as soon as possible (hopefully tomorrow or at Monday), but at the moment I am working hard as a member of the jury for WLM 2020/DE and can’t do any photo editing ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info New version with less noise uploaded. @Aristeas: Please revert, if it's not meeting Your expectations. --Ivar (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Iifar: Thank you very mich for helping out! (Maybe I will take the freedom to upload my own de-noised version created from the RAW file next week, but your version is definitely a good improvement, I will take it as a measure for my own attempt.) --Aristeas (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Appealing light, interesting architecture. Assuming no tripod was taken, the settings seem consistent to me (minor noise in the sky, honestly not a deal-breaker in my view). High resolution and appropriate DoF -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thank you very much, Cmao20, for nominating and all of you for your comments and support. --Aristeas (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ivar (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • This one, FF, paid some 2000, but ISO 400 migth be problem. A.Savin !? --Mile (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In Ivar's version well fixed, thanks. --A.Savin 13:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose None of the three buildings is large enough in the scene to keep the attention, so it feels like the three buildings together define the composition, and the way they're laid out doesn't feel balanced. Also, the way the trees suddenly burst in to obscure the building at the bottom-left makes it feel even less balanced. Lighting and detail are excellent, but the arrangement just doesn't fit together for me. --Bobulous (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I'd like more space at the bottom --Llez (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I understand your wish very well, but the problem is that at the bottom there are some very ugly modern buildings which would spoil the image … Next week I will have a look at the RAW file if I can rescue some more pixels at the bottom, but we cannot do much, sorry. --Aristeas (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Petit Champlain at night, Quebec city.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 19:34:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Petit Champlain at night, Quebec city
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment On balance, I think I agree. Very similar composition, same motif, but this is a larger file, brighter and has IMO a nicer composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment +1. I agree with Cmao20 too -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
IMHO It is a different composition, the previous one has more of an upper part than this, there are also people and another different decoration of lights --Wilfredor (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Although the new image is of higher quality, I prefer the composition of the old one. I just don't think a square crop works as well as a vertical aspect ratio. -- King of ♥ 22:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral per resolution of whether we should delist the old one or not. Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral exactly like Daniel. I like both photos very much, but I fear we cannot feature both of them. --Aristeas (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Friedhof ohlsdorf november 2019 30.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 16:23:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hamburg, cemetery Ohlsdorf, memorial for the civilian casualties in WW2, entrance
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Dirtsc - uploaded by Dirtsc - nominated by Dirtsc -- Dirtsc (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dirtsc (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice, a really arty composition with beautiful light. Cmao20 (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree. Really good, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very beautiful indeed, but the bright part looks unnatural. It is totally OK for the sun to be blown out. We shouldn't resort to fake highlight recovery to artificially suppress the brightness of the sky when the color information just isn't there. -- King of ♥ 22:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support KoH is right, but I still love the composition and light. ;–) Sidenote: It’s a pity and I do not understand why this photo did not pass the pre-jury for WLM 2020 :–(. But the pre-jury is always somewhat tricky … and always kills a few of the best submissions. --Aristeas (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Aristeas: Thanks for the sidenote! Greetings --Dirtsc (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I love the scene, but why is the metalwork so much softer and lighter in the areas where the sky is seen? --Bobulous (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mosbatho (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Like King of ♥, I like everything about the image except for the unnatural glow and sudden decrease in sharpness in the upper right corner of the gate. --MB-one (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:FCCA GE C30-7 Chinchan - Ticlio.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 13:49:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

FCCA between Chinchan and Ticlio, Peru
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by David Gubler - nominated by Ivar (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Typically good from Kabelleger. Cmao20 (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Cmao20. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ermell (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- King of ♥ 22:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportBruce1eetalk 06:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Basile, and also a nice colour/saturation contrast. --Aristeas (talk) 08:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I love this scene, and it's almost perfect except for the bizarre texture seen in the water closest to the front of the train. Is that some sort of noise reduction artefact? Can it be fixed? (Also, is the train driver giving you a thumbs up?) --Bobulous (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Must be some moiré effect, interference between the water's structure and the sensor pixels. I've uploaded a new version in which I didn't sharpen the water, I think it's much better that way. As usual SHIFT+reload may be necessary to see the changes. --Kabelleger (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Rose-ringed parakeet (Psittacula krameri borealis) male Jaipur 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 13:23:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rose-ringed parakeet (Psittacula krameri borealis) male near Jaipur

File:Laila Peak.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 12:56:01
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Nice view, but far below today's FP and QI standards. --A.Savin 12:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Ivar (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --StellarHalo (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Pretty, but tiny. Give me twice this resolution and I'd vote to keep. Cmao20 (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. I feel like we should keep really good or striking small pictures from the early digital photography age as historical. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Below 2 MP. A landscape would have to be in the 2-4 MP range for me to say "I wouldn't vote for this now, but I wouldn't delist it either." -- King of ♥ 22:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Slightly underexposed (sky), and the WB seems too warm, but the main issue is definitely the size. In years 2000-2001 I remember I was among the first to own a digital camera, working with floppy disks (almost this model). Maximum resolution 0.35 Mpx 🔬😭 Nice gadget at these old times to avoid developing the photos on paper before inserting them in university reports, however I really don't think any of these documents would have ever made a great image. Even at this period it was very clear the quality was disappointingly low compared to the standards -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Per Ikan Kekek. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Regretful delist If there were some way we could at least recognize the independently commendable elements (the composition and lighting), I wish we could. In those areas it could certainly serve as an example to emulate.Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist I am not swayed by Ikan's arguments; there is no such category as far as I'm aware, and this image doesn't meet the current FP bar, imo.--Peulle (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If historical digital photos can't be grandfathered in, why vote? Someone should create a bot that will automatically remove FP status from all photos below 2MP and run it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Points well taken, but why not do this kind of delisting with a bot? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I guess I do think that there should be some kind of acknowledgement of good pioneering use of the new digital technology, but if we want to revoke the FP status of everything under 2MP, a bot should be created and run. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • As for me, the photo is also a bit short on wow side, although it of course may have been considered unusual at the timepoint of promotion. But meanwhile we have lots of impressive mountain views, and I'm also not quite sure if the upright format is the best one for this scenery. That said, I still think what should be delisted is not to be decised via bot, but needs consensus instead. --A.Savin 16:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Ancien hôtel des Postes de Charleroi (DSC 0278).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 07:22:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ancien hôtel des Postes (Charleroi, Belgium)
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Belgium
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info by -- Trougnouf (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks like a good QI, but I'm not really wowed by the light or the motif, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 09:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support I agreed with Peulle at first but looking at it some more the soft light and the beautiful clouds have won me over. Support is only weak because I feel it is a little bit oversharpened and there is a little colour noise. Cmao20 (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done more denoising, less sharpening. Thank you ! --Trougnouf (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The clouds radiating from the center really enhance the composition. -- King of ♥ 22:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this. The lighting is subtle but the main building still has a luminosity which makes it stand out against its surroundings. The composition works for me: just the right amount of sky above the tower, and just about as much empty pavement showing below as is viable, and a clear view of the main building without obstruction or distraction. Detail is sharp at full screen (34" 4K) and sufficient at 100%. --Bobulous (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Sphinx moth (Eumorpha anchemolus).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2020 at 09:30:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sphinx moth (Eumorpha anchemolus), Panama

File:Chute Montmorency3.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2020 at 00:45:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Montmorency Falls

File:Green karst peaks seen from the top of Mount Nam Xay a sunny morning during the monsoon Vang Vieng Laos.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2020 at 23:56:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Green karst peaks seen from the top of Mount Nam Xay a sunny morning during the monsoon Vang Vieng Laos
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Have another look, Basile, it does not look crispy sharp to me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Charles J Sharp, sharp like your honeycomb I think. If not "crispy" then normally sharp. But look, you have two nominations currently, this honeycomb measuring 3,415 × 3,415 pixels, and a moth sized 4,422 × 2,948 pixels. Your buzzard archived yesterday measured 2,600 x 4,000 pixels, and your chameleon last week 3,785 × 2,523 pixels. Now this is how detailed this landscape appears when downsized or cropped to 4'422 px large, like the biggest of your 4 last candidatures. The autofocus was set, certainly the limit of the camera was reached. More sharpness would mean over-sharpened in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I was reacting to your dismissing the oppose vote with the 'crispy' adjective. I wouldn't dream of comparing the absolute sharpness of my hand-held photos using a enthusiast-level crop-frame body and a hand-held 400mm lens in average light conditions with your professional-level full-frame body and tripod with the option of testing out various settings. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support of course --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ivar (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very beautiful landscape and the sharpness looks fine to me. Cmao20 (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Majestic. -- King of ♥ 22:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice scenery, sharpness clearly OK. --A.Savin 13:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition and exposure, and a nice sense of depth delivered by the low angle of the sun. Detail is sharp at full screen (34" 4K) and sufficient at 100%. The clouds and the colours and the rugged terrain make for a striking scene. --Bobulous (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Brick Lane Jamme Masjid (parallel verticals version).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2020 at 19:22:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Brick Lane Jamme Masjid
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#United_Kingdom
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Bobulous -- Bobulous (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Bobulous (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Those clouds are looking weird... —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This looks a bit weird to me ... maybe it's the perspective correction, making it look squeezed in on the sides.--Peulle (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Peulle: The "perspective correction" tool in darktable was used to transform verticals which were very far from parallel in the original version. I've found that this darktable tool does a good job of maintaining the aspect ratio so long as the "specific" lens mode is used. So even though I didn't have a tilt-shift lens when this photograph was captured, I believe this adjusted image does look like what I'd get if a tilt-shift lens had been used. Bear in mind that this was a 16mm lens, so the corners would be subject to the usual ultra-wide-angle rectilinear stretch. But the feedback is welcome, so if anything else excludes this from FP status, I'd like to hear it. --Bobulous (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Peulle. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is a really great effort but unfortunately for me it doesn't reach FP. I think it illustrates the massive challenge of getting great photos of urban motifs where you have limited space from which to take the photo. You probably couldn't stand any further back than you did, which means you got a photo with converging verticals, but the perspective correction has introduced its own problems, making the picture look stretched at the top (the stretched cloud looks quite unnatural) and leading to a distinct loss of sharpness in the upper third of the frame. For me it just looks too obviously and aggressively perspective-corrected. I think the crop on the left is also quite tight, though this isn't the reason for my oppose. Cmao20 (talk) 06:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Very well said, that's what I was thinking as well. --Peulle (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Cmao20: Yeah, I was jamming myself into a doorway on the otherside of the road to fit the minaret into the frame, and even then I had to move about to avoid capturing the doorway in the shot. A 17mm tilt-shift lens would have helped, but would still have resulted in the rectilinear stretching. However, you're right that using software to mimic this has used up a lot of pixels towards the top of the image, making it softer. I'd argue that this isn't noticeable until you're viewing pixel-for-pixel, though. --Bobulous (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is certainly an interesting photo, and I'm glad it's a VI (and a QI). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Bela di Supra (Upper Belica).jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2020 at 10:27:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of Gorna Belica, Struga and Lake Ohrid in background
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Liridon - uploaded by Liridon - nominated by Liridon -- Liridon (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Liridon (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Sorry, for me it's not sharp enough. --XRay talk 11:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too ordinary IMO. --Peulle (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. I'm unconvinced it should be a QI, but for the purposes of FPC, it's not one of the greatest photos on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see what you were trying to do with the composition, but unfortunately the light is not so good. Cmao20 (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Peulle and Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Sugarloaf Mountain with the cloud on top.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2020 at 21:53:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sugarloaf Mountain with the cloud on top
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Brazil
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded Donatas Dabravolskas - nominated by -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The quality is not perfect but this is a really amazing sight. Cmao20 (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nice, but wb seems to slightly off. —kallerna (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A very striking scene, especially with the lines of cables partially disappearing within the cloud. The peak does appear starkly darker and more saturated than the rest of the rock, but I'm guessing this might be because it's above cloud level and less affected by moisture haze. The composition is good, the exposure fitting, and the warm colour seems right to me given how low the sun must be to cast shadows like that. --Bobulous (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not impressed by composition or quality. Should not be any need to crop (or it may be downsized). Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Not sure about the WB, especially given this picture taken by the same photographer at the same time. Daniel Case (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Duplicate picture (see metadata of both, e.g. unique ID). The other version was uploaded 5 Sep 2019 as part of WLM, the now nominated version -- on 16 Jul 2020 as part of WLE. Interesting strategy... --A.Savin 12:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
    A.Savin: Good point, but in the case this image had made it to the final of WLE 2020 in Brazil it would have been disqualified as we expect images that had not been uploaded before (that includes of course derivative works!). FYI Donatas Dabravolskas. Otherwise I agree with Charles and I find the original WB more realistic, therefore Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poco a poco (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Walkway and hut in paddy fields with water reflection of colorful clouds at sunset in Vang Vieng Laos.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 21:41:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Walkway and hut in paddy fields at sunset in Vang Vieng Laos
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Laos
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Another Laotian landscape from Basile Morin. As with so many of these I think it has really special and unusual light. created by Basile Morin - uploaded by Basile Morin - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't find this one among the best of Basile's landscapes. The sky is nice, but the foreground is too much about the mud puddles on the left. There's nothing wrong with that, necessarily, except that I feel like I'm supposed to be looking at the structure in the background and the field to the right (where the light is less appealing). — Rhododendrites talk |  23:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impossible not to support these beautiful lines. --Podzemnik (talk) 06:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Absolutely, per Podzemnik. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice, but not exceptional enough for FP. —kallerna (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks a lot, Cmao20, for the nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- King of ♥ 14:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 06:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per nomination. --Aristeas (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the contrast between the sublimity of the background and the prosaic mud in the foreground reflecting it, mud that someone has to walk around so that they and their family can eat. Daniel Case (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • And feed others, very often, too :-) I tried to target the orange clouds through the reflection. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose solid image but unfortunate light IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Galerie de la Reine, Brussels (DSCF7218).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 17:35:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Galerie de la Reine in Brussels (empty due to the COVID-19 pandemic)
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Belgium
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info by -- Trougnouf (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality is OK, good timing. But way too much of the floor, instead I'd wish to see more of the arches (like on this photo). IMO it would have been nothing wrong about heading the camera slightly upwards and then doing perspective correction. Light is a bit weak, too. --A.Savin 18:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Works great for me, I like having the vanishing point near the center. -- King of ♥ 21:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like it, but tend to agree with A.Savin about too much floor. I'd be inclined to support with a crop, but some might not like that for resolution reasons. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per King. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much floor. —kallerna (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per A.Savin --StellarHalo (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose per Kallerna. Nice picture but it does look slightly unbalanced, the trouble is there is nothing much to look at in the floor. I think landscape not portrait would have been a better choice here. Cmao20 (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose I think that cropping away the floor up to at least above the cracked tile would stop the empty space drawing attention away from the more interesting shopfronts and covered ceiling. Also, I hate to say it, but the red-and-white safety barrier/tape in the mid-distance is a little distracting once you spot it. --Bobulous (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per King. I think cropping the floor out would only have been justified if, like this onetime FP nom of mine, the camera had been able to take in the end point of the glass roof. Also, I think (per the way some !voters said they'd support that image if there hadn't been all those people at the bottom), it emphasizes the emptiness of a usually crowded public space due to the pandemic. Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Humanité René Philastre and Charles-Antoine Cambon - Set design for the second part of Victor Hugo's Les Burgraves, première production.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 09:58:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Les Burgraves
These set designs were meant to e turned into physical objects, the artistry is kind of a bonus. So, yes, but I'm not quite sure whether they were an artist guide or a construction guide. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Got it. Thanks for explaining. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Château Frontenac at night, Quebec Ville, Canada.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 02:55:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Château Frontenac at night, Quebec Ville, Canada
IMHO the colors of the trees are due to autumn. --Wilfredor (talk) 03:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
King of Hearts It was difficult to find a landmark, but I used the road asphalt as a landmark due to its neutral color, what do you think? --Wilfredor (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Parts of the leaves look grey, suggesting that there is ghosting from the HDR. I personally never use a sampled WB directly; I might use it as a starting point, but I always adjust it afterwards to make it look right to my eyes. -- King of ♥ 12:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I always try to take reference elements so that the photo is closer to the real colors, I will follow your recommendation to involve more my human factor and the appreciation of what I think the real colors were. On the other hand, with respect to the moved leaves, this is an area where the wind is common and except for specific conditions, the leaves will generally be moved, do you recommend any solution to this problem? One solution I see is to go there when the trees no longer have leaves. --Wilfredor (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Some blur in the leaves is fine; it's when you add HDR that it becomes problematic. You should choose only one frame to use, and then mask out all the others. As for which frame to use, it's a balancing act: the brighter the frame, the greater the blur, but the darker the frame, the more noise there is. -- King of ♥ 15:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean with "mask out all the others" ? --Wilfredor (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Some HDR programs allow you to tell it to ignore some of your exposures in some parts of the image that you choose. -- King of ♥ 17:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Has magic for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 08:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: tilted. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Despite some flaws, this is a super photo for me. Cmao20 (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I like it in general but some areas look too bright to me and therefore the result doesn't look so realistic, not sure how to vote here, to be honest, therefore Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Poco a poco (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Poco a poco, King of Hearts: I rebuilt from the raw again to fix the too bright areas. Please, let me know what do you think. Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me, thanks, Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Big improvement, but I think it's significant enough that people who voted to support should also be pinged. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very striking, but there's something unnatural feeling about certain parts that I can't explain. Firstly, the stars look like they've been added in artificially (their positions have moved when compared to your original version), and they have an odd mix of coma and what looks like JPEG artefacts. Secondly, parts of the sky have a blotchy/wavy appearance that doesn't look like anything I've seen in digital photos before. Thirdly, the tones have a feel similar to most recent estate agent photographs, where all areas have the same narrow range of luminance. Would I be right to guess that some sort of "HDR" or "AI" enhancement software has been used? It is a great scene, but this version doesn't feel believable to me. --Bobulous (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Bobulous I did not add any saturation or any kind of artificial fading or filters. The colors are actually naturals (you will find the RAW images here: 1, 2 and 3). I use Aurora HDR to assembling the images and Topaz Denoise to noise reduction and IMHO some lighting changes in the sky could be result of light pollution?. Finally I also apply a lens distortion correction (possibly the movement you mention)--Wilfredor (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Sunday Creek Bog2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 00:56:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sunday Creek Bog
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Ontario
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: Sunday Creek Bog seen from the Spruce Bog Boardwalk, Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada. All by -- -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow, highlights adjusted too much, dull light. —kallerna (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I quite like it. The mix of autumn colors, reflection of the sky, the curve of the lake and width of frame make for a really pleasant, quiet scene. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Rhododendrites --StellarHalo (talk) 05:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per kallerna; it looks like the shadows and highlights were pushed too far for the sky. (File:Sunday Creek Bog.jpg looks a bit more believable) --Trougnouf (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It looks more natural with the new edit. The scene doesn't wow me but I have nothing against it (though if it came down to replacing the other shot with this wider one I would be in favor. I didn't initially realize that it was featured). --Trougnouf (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I noticed that you had to restitch it to perform modifications, that's a lot of work. What I usually do when I have to work with a separate editor is an initial processing in darktable with the same exposure, white balance, denoising, and nothing else, then export with the Linear rec2020 RGB color profile (which is the same as darktable's working profile) as 16-bit tiff (hugin doesn't seem to work well with 32-bit tiff but the difference should be insignificant), that way virtually no information is lost and you can do the stitching in hugin or whatever else, then finally reimport it and do all of the editing in darktable as if you were working on the raw file (minus wb, demosaic, denoising). This way further edits can always be done (and it's less prone to overprocessing by doing multiple passes of the same module). --Trougnouf (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing the workflow tips! It can get very tedious to redo the whole thing indeed. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Super resolution but the colours are very similar to the other FP linked by Trougnouf, and I agree about the sky, the whole effect looks a bit like overdone HDR (I know it's not HDR, but that's how it looks). Cmao20 (talk) 06:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done: reprocessed Kallerna, Trougnouf, Cmao20 --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support due to the technical issues, but otherwise ... this is what autumn in the north looks like more often than not. We don't always need sun and a clear azure sky to make it beautiful. Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Wroclaw- Most Zwierzyniecki.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2020 at 22:13:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Zwierzyniecki Bridge in Wrocław
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Poland
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jar.ciurus - uploaded by Jar.ciurus - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Andrei (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but with the left cut off the nice line created by the tracks just doesn't lead anywhere. -- King of ♥ 03:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It leads across the bridge. Strong sense of motion to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Nice view, but would expect a little bit of the left arch of the bridge. --XRay talk 08:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per King --StellarHalo (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan Kekek, the leading lines are actually really good. Too much NR for me, but still deserves the star. Cmao20 (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition not working for me. -- Colin (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Colin. A QI yes, but not an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support The composition with regard to the bridge works well. The starburst from the lanterns is a little distracting, but doesn't really clash with the curves of the bridge, so I think it's acceptable. The motion blur of the vehicle (bus) in the far distance is not ideal, but very small in the scene. And the advert which says "BAR" is not ideal, but somewhat mitigated by the fact its bleached by specular light. Overall, though, the sweeping curves of the bridge side and top save the scene, and the exposure and colours are just right for drawing attention to them. --Bobulous (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Port de Sète - Octobre 2020.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2020 at 18:05:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Port de Sète
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#France
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created - uploaded - nominated by me. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow, wb off (?). —kallerna (talk) 06:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Works for me. Beautiful complementarity of the breakwaters on the left and right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but I kind of agree with Kallerna, this is a good quality photo but the composition doesn't appeal to me. Cmao20 (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The complementarity of the breakwaters is nice but it's hard to notice with everything else going on in the bottom. Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

File:2017 Pociąg do nieba we Wrocławiu.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2020 at 15:57:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Train to heaven in Wrocław

File:Fernsicht von der Hasenmatt.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2020 at 11:42:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Far view from the Hasenmatt to the Swiss Alps in a distance of 150 - 170 km
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Solothurn
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Far view from the Hasenmatt to the Swiss Alps in a distance of 150 - 170 km. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Milseburg (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wide panorama of exactly what? Grass and hazy valley? —kallerna (talk) 06:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A shot that could have been great, but with those hazy conditions we don't really get to see the view.--Peulle (talk) 08:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me the haziness is the whole point. I really like the silvery/blue colours. Cmao20 (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose With this sort of view, the trick is to compress the perspective with a telephoto lens, not exaggerate the perspective with a ultra-wide-angle-panorama so that the photogenic hills are tiny. Most of the image is grass. -- Colin (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Cmao; I like that the distant mountains look as far off as the description says they are, sort of dreamlike. Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Cmao--Tesla - 💬 21:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Colin. -- King of ♥ 22:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I feel like I am standing on there myself, looking out at the beautiful view! —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Borkum, Hauptstrand -- 2020 -- 2691 (bw).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2020 at 06:39:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Beach chairs on the main beach, Borkum, Lower Saxony, Germany
  • Of course there's more information in the photo with colours. Remembering the scope of the project, I always prefer non-edited pictures, artistic filters may be used elsewhere. —kallerna (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Non-edited isn't easy. I always take photographs in RAW. So you need the development. ;-) (And BTW: What do think is a "non-edited" image? Only taken with automatic features of your camera?) And black-and-white itself isn't artistic. Why should I remember the scope? --XRay talk 08:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • B&W is definitely a filter, a stylistic device. I think you know what I mean with non-edited images, especially nowadays when the social media influences using of filters etc. in images. —kallerna (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I think we have different perceptions of what goes on in black and white. You think more of modern with social media, my memory hangs on the legendary Ilford Pan F Plus 50 and another way of developing a photograph. But so be it. --XRay talk 11:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Simple, very good composition, and I like it much better in black & white. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support B&W is about textures and contrasts and here it work very well. --Basotxerri (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but I just don't feel any wow from this. I can appreciate the artistic effort, and if I were judging a competition with that as the criteria, it would certainly rank high. But not at FPC. Daniel Case (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry these beach chairs are a common photo motif and this scene isn't special enough. Background too busy. The B&W treatment would work if there was a texture contrast between the chairs and the smooth sand/sea, but the sand/sea isn't smooth. -- Colin (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others --StellarHalo (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


秀逸除外候補Edit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:New York and Jersey City Skyline Panorama.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 14:05:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have no problems with the crops, and it's great to see both the Jersey City and Lower Manhattan skylines together (plus Ellis Island, which should get a category and be mentioned in the description). However, a lot of the buildings feel washed out to me. I feel like this was a hazy late morning, not ideal for the shoot, but I wonder whether selectively increasing saturation could help. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:WLM - 2020 - Schloss Schönbrunn - Kronprinzengarten - 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 13:10:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Crown Prince Garden, Schönbrunn Palace, Vienna, Austria

File:The Arcades, Christchurch, New Zealand 04.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 12:47:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Arcades, Christchurch, New Zealand

File:Petite Venise depuis le pont de la rue de Turenne (Colmar) (2).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 12:12:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Iglesia de San Juan de Mata y San Félix de Valois, Bratislava, Eslovaquia, 2020-02-01, DD 78.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 12:18:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Church of St John of Matha, Bratislava, Slovakia
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question I really feel shrunk on both sides. Very tight crop. Possible more space around? -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks for the nom MB-one! I had to get close to the church to photograph it, taking a shot with 30 cables wasn't an option. Will upload a new version with a more "natural" look later today Poco a poco (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose With this much distortion, this one should not be a QI. Even without the distortion, I fail to be amazed of the photo. Just a church facade. —kallerna (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Heavy distortion, shade divides the facade in two, very tight crop - this is not among the finest on Commons. --Ivar (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment New version uploaded with more crop on both sides and adjustments of perspective and aspect ratio Poco a poco (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Knoblauch (Allium sativum)-20200621-RM-085344.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 11:26:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Bergtocht van Guarda via Ardez en Ftan naar Scuol. 20-09-2019. (d.j.b) 10.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 05:27:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Doors/Switzerland
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A decorative and funny door knocker. With wear spots in the paint layer. The shadow effect gives the photo an added value for me. Guarda was awarded (the Wakker Prize) for the preservation of its architectural heritage in 1975.
    All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support My father used to photograph door knockers in many countries, therefore I know many of them. This one would have been a showpiece for his collection ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 09:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oversaturated, highlights/shadows adjusted too much, no wow. The light is also too harsh. —kallerna (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Main path lined with stone pillars to the ruined Khmer Hindu temple of Wat Phou, Champasak, Laos.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 05:11:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Main path lined with stone pillars to the ruined Khmer Hindu temple of Wat Phou, Champasak, Laos

File:PK Thatta asv2020-02 img03 Shah Jahan Mosque.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 01:54:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dome interior, Shah Jahan Mosque, Thatta

File:Goodyera repens flowers in detail - Männiku.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 19:30:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Creeping lady's-tresses
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family_:_Orchidaceae
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Very tiny flowers of Creeping lady's-tresses, focus stacked of 46 images. The background is sky through the trees. All by Ivar (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ivar (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful light, nice natural background. The DoF could have been more consistent, still enough crispy sharp areas to appreciate currently -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · 01:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive, considering the size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Definitely unsharp even on 12 MPx and some CA all across the plant (reflexion). But i like thia back color, much better than that light green. --Mile (talk) 07:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Unsharp if this was a photo of large flowers, but they are tiny Mile. Please have another look. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Charlesjsharp I still think stack could be better, i have one in a similar size, manual shots before stack, the flower was on the hill (windy-moving). Unless pic was scaled-up !? APS-C might not be best for small macros. --Mile (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @PetarM: Nothing was upscaled. All my Nikon images tends to be a bit soft and usually additional sharpening is added. "Definitely unsharp" is imho very harsh assessment. --Ivar (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Ivar Maybe i should say "sharp enough", but stack could be done more appropriate. --Mile (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I may be missing something here, but the description implies these flowers are 5 x 7mm, but yours are 30 x 30mm Mile. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Charlesjsharp My whole flower was 30×30 mm, all that sqaured size. Means each white blossom was under 10mm. I suppose Ivar gave a blossom size, not the complete size of the flower we are looking at ? --Mile (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Mile: You are comparing quite flat inflorescence with the one that has hairy flowers. 9 stacked images versus 46, they are not quite comparable. --Ivar (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Ivar We won't get far here. But you gave me a mission, I will try to find this flower in soon future. I will try to reaffirm my objectives here. Maybe I will fail too, but let's have a try. --Mile (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Mile: Face-smile.svg You need to wait at least for the next summer to find this rare species in Slovenia. Good luck with that! Anyway, the asessment "Definitely unsharp" is imo not competent. --Ivar (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 09:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Mile, this kind of shots have limited wow to me, therefore I really expect crispy sharpness, which unfortunately isn't the case here Poco a poco (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Tallinna Tööstushariduskeskus 005-omblusklass pano.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 16:54:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

360° view on the Tallinn Industrial Education Centre sewing class

File:Tallinna Teeninduskool 009-kokalabor pano.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 16:45:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

360° view on the Tallinn School of Service cook's laboratory

File:Bossee-2020-13-msu-.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 15:00:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Church of St Sebastian, Ponta DelgadaEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 09:25:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Church of St Sebastian, Ponta Delgada, São Miguel Island, Azores, Portugal. The church, built between 1531 and 1547, is one of the landmarks of the capital of the island. I propose these images as a set because I believe that each of them deserves the FP star alone and because the set depicts this beautiful church from different viewpoints giving a comprehensive view of it (3rd criteria "A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints"). Note that there is already a closer look of the high altar that became FP and could have been added to this set. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Interested to see how this set is interpreted. For me, the images, high quality as they are, do not depict 'the same subject from different viewpoints'. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    The subject is the church and I offer different view of parts of it Poco a poco (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In the exterior image there is a car that is distracting and the "General view of the interior." there is a problem of distortion of the verticals, the upper part is stretched towards the sides (check the verticality of the columns) --Wilfredor (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Wilfredor: I reworked the image of the exterior view: the van is gone, I also improved the verticals. I've also made some adjusments of the interior view and added one additional image of the interior looking from the altar back to the entrance. Poco a poco (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Almost everything is fine but "General view of the nave back from the altar." has the same problem now fixed in "General view of the interior.", please, fix it too and I will support it. Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Wilfredor: I had already anticipated this feedback and rework the second interior image before I added it to the set, but I made now some additional adjustments. --Poco a poco (talk) 09:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Sigo observando el problema de las columnas en "General view of the nave back from the altar.", la parte superior de las columnas esta inclinada hacia afuera, esto es fácilmente corregible usando las guías en Photoshop. --Wilfredor (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Wilfredor: ¿¿cómo lo ves ahora?? si sigo sin atinar, ¿podrías añadir una nota? Poco a poco (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Distortion quite strong on the first image, looks like the tower is falling down. --Ivar (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Ivar: I readjusted the perspective of the tower Poco a poco (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Imho it's not fixable, because shooting point was too close to the church. --Ivar (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I was Ivar, indeed as far as I could and I also took the side further from the tower. The church is in the middle of the city and there are usually tons of people walking around specially visiting bars or restaurants nearby. I could manage this shot without people thank you patience and COVID-19. Poco a poco (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Amazing images, on the whole. I really like all three interior views and I think they should definitely be FP. The exterior isn't so clear for me, the van is distracting and I agree with Ivar that the tower looks like it's falling backwards. Cmao20 (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Cmao20: as mentioned above I addressed the mentioned issues of the external image Poco a poco (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks, I mean honestly it's an amazing set and I'm not going to quibble any further. Cmao20 (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The last two photos are unreservedly FPs to me. I'm not as sure about the rest. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I like all the photos and IMHO at least the first (now) and the two last really deserve the star, but I am not sure about the set idea. --Aristeas (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Tropidolaemus wagleri, Wagler's palm pit viper - Takua Pa District, Phang-nga Province (48238132136).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 08:55:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wagler's palm pit viper

File:Une tartiflette sortie du four.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 08:15:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info nominated by Benoît Prieur -- --Benoît (d) 08:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- --Benoît (d) 08:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp and appetizing-looking photo of the tartiflette. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No reason to have assymetic and 'tilted' tile pattern. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support per Ikan but I also take Charles' points. Cmao20 (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no wow. Kruusamägi (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose Looks very yummy and certainly good photographic quality, but per Charlesjsharp and Kruusamägi. --MB-one (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose +1. --Peulle (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Tūranga (library), Christchurch City, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 07:23:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tūranga (library), Christchurch City, New Zealand
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#New_Zealand
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by me. It's Tūranga, a new public library in Christchurch, New Zealand. The old one was destroyed during the earthquakes. It's usually quite busy around so I'm quite pleased that I managed to take this shot without cars and people. -- Podzemnik (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I may be a lone dissenter, but the front of the building feels too in-your-face to me. The right side has a decent rhythm and I like the design on the bottom right of the front, but I just find the building in general upsetting to view and not part of a great composition, although I'm of course happy that a new public library was constructed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The more I look at it the more that cropped tree on the left bothers me. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Plagiodontes daedaleus f. minor 01.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 07:06:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A shell of Plagiodontes daedaleus forma minor
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family : Odontostomidae
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Llez (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not really colorful like many of the shells you've photographed, but very nice details and very impressive, considering its size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not so colourful, but have a look at the teeth! --Llez (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, boring colours, but amazing internal detail. What is the purpose of the 'teeth'? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I suppose that it is an protection against predators, when the animal is retracted in the shell. In contrary to many sea and freshwater snails, most of he land snails lack an operculum, which has amongst others the same function. At any rate these teeth are very useful for taxonomists, for their arrangement (different in every species) helps to identify the species ;-). --Llez (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cmao20 (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ermell (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Gynaephora selenitica caterpillar - Keila.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 05:49:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gynaephora selenitica caterpillar
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Erebidae_(Erebid_Moths)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Focus stacked of 9 images. All by Ivar (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ivar, this isn't a FP to me, most of the water drops are sharp but the caterpillar 1) isn't sharp and 2) is hardly visible, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not quite at Sven's dragonfly level yet! A much higher quality of stack, but not the depth of field. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose The bar for focus stacks is getting quite high and I'm not sure this one is quite there for the reasons Poco mentions. Nice photo though overall Cmao20 (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Ivar (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Jeanette Scissum at Marshall Space Flight Center.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 00:02:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jeanette Scissum
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA/MSFC - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice photo of someone I wish I had already known about. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cmao20 (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Not an FP. Moon dominates and the file cabinet on the right is highly distracting. Face is not well lit. Seven Pandas (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Seven Pandas. Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @Seven Pandas, Daniel Case: I'm confused about the month-old face comment. She is African-American, and the photo was shot a little overexposed to try and get more detail in her face with the filmstock of the time, so I think it's as all-out as it could have been. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden:Her face doesn't bother me; I know we're asserting the main value of the image is historic. But ... I think SP had a point about how, if she's the basis for nominating the image for FP, it really works as one if she's only a quarter of the total image and not the most prominent thing in it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Maya skull fronp1p1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2020 at 22:14:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvmontuy (talk • contribs)

File:Steuerhaus, Memmingen, Alemania, 2019-06-21, DD 90.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2020 at 21:10:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Steuerhaus, Memmingen, Germany
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Steuerhaus, Memmingen, Germany. The building dates from 1494/1495 and was created for the administration of the finances of the city. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have the feeling that some people at the left are distorted (stretched horizontally), caused by the wide angle objective, also the arch at the right. --Llez (talk) 06:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    Llez I applied an aspect ratio adjustment, looks better now, thanks, Poco a poco (talk) 08:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice, and the forward-and-back motion is helped by the wicker chairs. Side point: It's funny that there are no flags in the flagpoles. In the U.S., there would be, but I understand the different historical consciousness of Germany. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Complicated! Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan, a really nice colourful photo. Cmao20 (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan. It's also faintly nostalgic to see people sitting in groups at tables right next to other people in groups sitting at tables ... Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but I've looked at this a few times now, and I don't understand what's so special about it that it should warrant FP status.--Peulle (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Peulle. —kallerna (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Peulle. --MB-one (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Peulle and right crop doesn't work for me. --Ivar (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Georgios Ntaviotis & Daniel Souček, U21 CZE-GRE 2019-10-10.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2020 at 19:00:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Georgios Ntaviotis and Daniel Souček in an internatinoal association football match of European Under-21 Championship Qualifying Round between the Czech Republic and Greece
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Association football (soccer)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me. -- T.Bednarz (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- T.Bednarz (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The scene doesn't speak for itself (why does the guy in the white shirt appear to be shouting at his hand, and why is the other guy not interested in the ball?). Also, the motion blur, on the hand and the ball, detracts from the image rather than adding to it. --Bobulous (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm sorry, but once you read Bobulous's !vote you can't take the picture seriously (In any event, regardless of the outcome of this, I think the image would benefit greatly from being cropped in from the left as that part of it adds nothing). Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Beilstein - Burg Hohenbeilstein und Unteres Schloss - Ansicht vom Birkenweg mit Abendsonne.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 19:35:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View from the Birkenweg to Hohenbeilstein Castle (on the top of the hill) and to the so-called Unteres Schloss
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It was not easily possible to use a tripod (I took this photo standing on a parking place, people and cars cruising around me ;–), I wanted f/10 to get enough DoF at 94mm, and so I selected ISO 400 to get 1/125 s in order to avoid camera shake. --Aristeas (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • IMO it would be nothing wrong about using, for example, f/7.3 and 1/50 sec exposure. Tripod? For god's sake, a Sony A7Rx user hardly ever needs a tripod ;-) --A.Savin 13:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I will provide a version with noise reduction in the sky as soon as possible (hopefully tomorrow or at Monday), but at the moment I am working hard as a member of the jury for WLM 2020/DE and can’t do any photo editing ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info New version with less noise uploaded. @Aristeas: Please revert, if it's not meeting Your expectations. --Ivar (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Iifar: Thank you very mich for helping out! (Maybe I will take the freedom to upload my own de-noised version created from the RAW file next week, but your version is definitely a good improvement, I will take it as a measure for my own attempt.) --Aristeas (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Appealing light, interesting architecture. Assuming no tripod was taken, the settings seem consistent to me (minor noise in the sky, honestly not a deal-breaker in my view). High resolution and appropriate DoF -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thank you very much, Cmao20, for nominating and all of you for your comments and support. --Aristeas (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ivar (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • This one, FF, paid some 2000, but ISO 400 migth be problem. A.Savin !? --Mile (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In Ivar's version well fixed, thanks. --A.Savin 13:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose None of the three buildings is large enough in the scene to keep the attention, so it feels like the three buildings together define the composition, and the way they're laid out doesn't feel balanced. Also, the way the trees suddenly burst in to obscure the building at the bottom-left makes it feel even less balanced. Lighting and detail are excellent, but the arrangement just doesn't fit together for me. --Bobulous (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I'd like more space at the bottom --Llez (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I understand your wish very well, but the problem is that at the bottom there are some very ugly modern buildings which would spoil the image … Next week I will have a look at the RAW file if I can rescue some more pixels at the bottom, but we cannot do much, sorry. --Aristeas (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Petit Champlain at night, Quebec city.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 19:34:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Petit Champlain at night, Quebec city
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment On balance, I think I agree. Very similar composition, same motif, but this is a larger file, brighter and has IMO a nicer composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment +1. I agree with Cmao20 too -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
IMHO It is a different composition, the previous one has more of an upper part than this, there are also people and another different decoration of lights --Wilfredor (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Although the new image is of higher quality, I prefer the composition of the old one. I just don't think a square crop works as well as a vertical aspect ratio. -- King of ♥ 22:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral per resolution of whether we should delist the old one or not. Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral exactly like Daniel. I like both photos very much, but I fear we cannot feature both of them. --Aristeas (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Friedhof ohlsdorf november 2019 30.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 16:23:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hamburg, cemetery Ohlsdorf, memorial for the civilian casualties in WW2, entrance
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Dirtsc - uploaded by Dirtsc - nominated by Dirtsc -- Dirtsc (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dirtsc (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice, a really arty composition with beautiful light. Cmao20 (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree. Really good, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very beautiful indeed, but the bright part looks unnatural. It is totally OK for the sun to be blown out. We shouldn't resort to fake highlight recovery to artificially suppress the brightness of the sky when the color information just isn't there. -- King of ♥ 22:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support KoH is right, but I still love the composition and light. ;–) Sidenote: It’s a pity and I do not understand why this photo did not pass the pre-jury for WLM 2020 :–(. But the pre-jury is always somewhat tricky … and always kills a few of the best submissions. --Aristeas (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Aristeas: Thanks for the sidenote! Greetings --Dirtsc (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I love the scene, but why is the metalwork so much softer and lighter in the areas where the sky is seen? --Bobulous (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mosbatho (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Like King of ♥, I like everything about the image except for the unnatural glow and sudden decrease in sharpness in the upper right corner of the gate. --MB-one (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:FCCA GE C30-7 Chinchan - Ticlio.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 13:49:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

FCCA between Chinchan and Ticlio, Peru
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by David Gubler - nominated by Ivar (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Typically good from Kabelleger. Cmao20 (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Cmao20. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ermell (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- King of ♥ 22:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportBruce1eetalk 06:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Basile, and also a nice colour/saturation contrast. --Aristeas (talk) 08:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I love this scene, and it's almost perfect except for the bizarre texture seen in the water closest to the front of the train. Is that some sort of noise reduction artefact? Can it be fixed? (Also, is the train driver giving you a thumbs up?) --Bobulous (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Must be some moiré effect, interference between the water's structure and the sensor pixels. I've uploaded a new version in which I didn't sharpen the water, I think it's much better that way. As usual SHIFT+reload may be necessary to see the changes. --Kabelleger (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Rose-ringed parakeet (Psittacula krameri borealis) male Jaipur 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 13:23:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rose-ringed parakeet (Psittacula krameri borealis) male near Jaipur

File:Laila Peak.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 12:56:01
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Nice view, but far below today's FP and QI standards. --A.Savin 12:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Ivar (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --StellarHalo (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Pretty, but tiny. Give me twice this resolution and I'd vote to keep. Cmao20 (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. I feel like we should keep really good or striking small pictures from the early digital photography age as historical. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Below 2 MP. A landscape would have to be in the 2-4 MP range for me to say "I wouldn't vote for this now, but I wouldn't delist it either." -- King of ♥ 22:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Slightly underexposed (sky), and the WB seems too warm, but the main issue is definitely the size. In years 2000-2001 I remember I was among the first to own a digital camera, working with floppy disks (almost this model). Maximum resolution 0.35 Mpx 🔬😭 Nice gadget at these old times to avoid developing the photos on paper before inserting them in university reports, however I really don't think any of these documents would have ever made a great image. Even at this period it was very clear the quality was disappointingly low compared to the standards -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Per Ikan Kekek. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Regretful delist If there were some way we could at least recognize the independently commendable elements (the composition and lighting), I wish we could. In those areas it could certainly serve as an example to emulate.Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist I am not swayed by Ikan's arguments; there is no such category as far as I'm aware, and this image doesn't meet the current FP bar, imo.--Peulle (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If historical digital photos can't be grandfathered in, why vote? Someone should create a bot that will automatically remove FP status from all photos below 2MP and run it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Points well taken, but why not do this kind of delisting with a bot? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I guess I do think that there should be some kind of acknowledgement of good pioneering use of the new digital technology, but if we want to revoke the FP status of everything under 2MP, a bot should be created and run. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • As for me, the photo is also a bit short on wow side, although it of course may have been considered unusual at the timepoint of promotion. But meanwhile we have lots of impressive mountain views, and I'm also not quite sure if the upright format is the best one for this scenery. That said, I still think what should be delisted is not to be decised via bot, but needs consensus instead. --A.Savin 16:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Ancien hôtel des Postes de Charleroi (DSC 0278).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 07:22:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ancien hôtel des Postes (Charleroi, Belgium)
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Belgium
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info by -- Trougnouf (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks like a good QI, but I'm not really wowed by the light or the motif, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 09:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support I agreed with Peulle at first but looking at it some more the soft light and the beautiful clouds have won me over. Support is only weak because I feel it is a little bit oversharpened and there is a little colour noise. Cmao20 (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done more denoising, less sharpening. Thank you ! --Trougnouf (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The clouds radiating from the center really enhance the composition. -- King of ♥ 22:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this. The lighting is subtle but the main building still has a luminosity which makes it stand out against its surroundings. The composition works for me: just the right amount of sky above the tower, and just about as much empty pavement showing below as is viable, and a clear view of the main building without obstruction or distraction. Detail is sharp at full screen (34" 4K) and sufficient at 100%. --Bobulous (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Sphinx moth (Eumorpha anchemolus).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2020 at 09:30:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sphinx moth (Eumorpha anchemolus), Panama

File:Chute Montmorency3.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2020 at 00:45:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Montmorency Falls

File:Green karst peaks seen from the top of Mount Nam Xay a sunny morning during the monsoon Vang Vieng Laos.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2020 at 23:56:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Green karst peaks seen from the top of Mount Nam Xay a sunny morning during the monsoon Vang Vieng Laos
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Have another look, Basile, it does not look crispy sharp to me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Charles J Sharp, sharp like your honeycomb I think. If not "crispy" then normally sharp. But look, you have two nominations currently, this honeycomb measuring 3,415 × 3,415 pixels, and a moth sized 4,422 × 2,948 pixels. Your buzzard archived yesterday measured 2,600 x 4,000 pixels, and your chameleon last week 3,785 × 2,523 pixels. Now this is how detailed this landscape appears when downsized or cropped to 4'422 px large, like the biggest of your 4 last candidatures. The autofocus was set, certainly the limit of the camera was reached. More sharpness would mean over-sharpened in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I was reacting to your dismissing the oppose vote with the 'crispy' adjective. I wouldn't dream of comparing the absolute sharpness of my hand-held photos using a enthusiast-level crop-frame body and a hand-held 400mm lens in average light conditions with your professional-level full-frame body and tripod with the option of testing out various settings. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support of course --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ivar (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very beautiful landscape and the sharpness looks fine to me. Cmao20 (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Majestic. -- King of ♥ 22:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice scenery, sharpness clearly OK. --A.Savin 13:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition and exposure, and a nice sense of depth delivered by the low angle of the sun. Detail is sharp at full screen (34" 4K) and sufficient at 100%. The clouds and the colours and the rugged terrain make for a striking scene. --Bobulous (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Brick Lane Jamme Masjid (parallel verticals version).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2020 at 19:22:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Brick Lane Jamme Masjid
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#United_Kingdom
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Bobulous -- Bobulous (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Bobulous (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Those clouds are looking weird... —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This looks a bit weird to me ... maybe it's the perspective correction, making it look squeezed in on the sides.--Peulle (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Peulle: The "perspective correction" tool in darktable was used to transform verticals which were very far from parallel in the original version. I've found that this darktable tool does a good job of maintaining the aspect ratio so long as the "specific" lens mode is used. So even though I didn't have a tilt-shift lens when this photograph was captured, I believe this adjusted image does look like what I'd get if a tilt-shift lens had been used. Bear in mind that this was a 16mm lens, so the corners would be subject to the usual ultra-wide-angle rectilinear stretch. But the feedback is welcome, so if anything else excludes this from FP status, I'd like to hear it. --Bobulous (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Peulle. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is a really great effort but unfortunately for me it doesn't reach FP. I think it illustrates the massive challenge of getting great photos of urban motifs where you have limited space from which to take the photo. You probably couldn't stand any further back than you did, which means you got a photo with converging verticals, but the perspective correction has introduced its own problems, making the picture look stretched at the top (the stretched cloud looks quite unnatural) and leading to a distinct loss of sharpness in the upper third of the frame. For me it just looks too obviously and aggressively perspective-corrected. I think the crop on the left is also quite tight, though this isn't the reason for my oppose. Cmao20 (talk) 06:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Very well said, that's what I was thinking as well. --Peulle (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Cmao20: Yeah, I was jamming myself into a doorway on the otherside of the road to fit the minaret into the frame, and even then I had to move about to avoid capturing the doorway in the shot. A 17mm tilt-shift lens would have helped, but would still have resulted in the rectilinear stretching. However, you're right that using software to mimic this has used up a lot of pixels towards the top of the image, making it softer. I'd argue that this isn't noticeable until you're viewing pixel-for-pixel, though. --Bobulous (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is certainly an interesting photo, and I'm glad it's a VI (and a QI). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Bela di Supra (Upper Belica).jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2020 at 10:27:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of Gorna Belica, Struga and Lake Ohrid in background
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Liridon - uploaded by Liridon - nominated by Liridon -- Liridon (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Liridon (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Sorry, for me it's not sharp enough. --XRay talk 11:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too ordinary IMO. --Peulle (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. I'm unconvinced it should be a QI, but for the purposes of FPC, it's not one of the greatest photos on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see what you were trying to do with the composition, but unfortunately the light is not so good. Cmao20 (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Peulle and Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Sugarloaf Mountain with the cloud on top.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2020 at 21:53:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sugarloaf Mountain with the cloud on top
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Brazil
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded Donatas Dabravolskas - nominated by -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The quality is not perfect but this is a really amazing sight. Cmao20 (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nice, but wb seems to slightly off. —kallerna (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A very striking scene, especially with the lines of cables partially disappearing within the cloud. The peak does appear starkly darker and more saturated than the rest of the rock, but I'm guessing this might be because it's above cloud level and less affected by moisture haze. The composition is good, the exposure fitting, and the warm colour seems right to me given how low the sun must be to cast shadows like that. --Bobulous (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not impressed by composition or quality. Should not be any need to crop (or it may be downsized). Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Not sure about the WB, especially given this picture taken by the same photographer at the same time. Daniel Case (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Duplicate picture (see metadata of both, e.g. unique ID). The other version was uploaded 5 Sep 2019 as part of WLM, the now nominated version -- on 16 Jul 2020 as part of WLE. Interesting strategy... --A.Savin 12:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
    A.Savin: Good point, but in the case this image had made it to the final of WLE 2020 in Brazil it would have been disqualified as we expect images that had not been uploaded before (that includes of course derivative works!). FYI Donatas Dabravolskas. Otherwise I agree with Charles and I find the original WB more realistic, therefore Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poco a poco (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Walkway and hut in paddy fields with water reflection of colorful clouds at sunset in Vang Vieng Laos.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 21:41:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Walkway and hut in paddy fields at sunset in Vang Vieng Laos
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Laos
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Another Laotian landscape from Basile Morin. As with so many of these I think it has really special and unusual light. created by Basile Morin - uploaded by Basile Morin - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't find this one among the best of Basile's landscapes. The sky is nice, but the foreground is too much about the mud puddles on the left. There's nothing wrong with that, necessarily, except that I feel like I'm supposed to be looking at the structure in the background and the field to the right (where the light is less appealing). — Rhododendrites talk |  23:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impossible not to support these beautiful lines. --Podzemnik (talk) 06:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Absolutely, per Podzemnik. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice, but not exceptional enough for FP. —kallerna (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks a lot, Cmao20, for the nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- King of ♥ 14:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 06:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per nomination. --Aristeas (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the contrast between the sublimity of the background and the prosaic mud in the foreground reflecting it, mud that someone has to walk around so that they and their family can eat. Daniel Case (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • And feed others, very often, too :-) I tried to target the orange clouds through the reflection. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose solid image but unfortunate light IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Galerie de la Reine, Brussels (DSCF7218).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 17:35:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Galerie de la Reine in Brussels (empty due to the COVID-19 pandemic)
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Belgium
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info by -- Trougnouf (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality is OK, good timing. But way too much of the floor, instead I'd wish to see more of the arches (like on this photo). IMO it would have been nothing wrong about heading the camera slightly upwards and then doing perspective correction. Light is a bit weak, too. --A.Savin 18:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Works great for me, I like having the vanishing point near the center. -- King of ♥ 21:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like it, but tend to agree with A.Savin about too much floor. I'd be inclined to support with a crop, but some might not like that for resolution reasons. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per King. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much floor. —kallerna (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per A.Savin --StellarHalo (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose per Kallerna. Nice picture but it does look slightly unbalanced, the trouble is there is nothing much to look at in the floor. I think landscape not portrait would have been a better choice here. Cmao20 (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose I think that cropping away the floor up to at least above the cracked tile would stop the empty space drawing attention away from the more interesting shopfronts and covered ceiling. Also, I hate to say it, but the red-and-white safety barrier/tape in the mid-distance is a little distracting once you spot it. --Bobulous (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per King. I think cropping the floor out would only have been justified if, like this onetime FP nom of mine, the camera had been able to take in the end point of the glass roof. Also, I think (per the way some !voters said they'd support that image if there hadn't been all those people at the bottom), it emphasizes the emptiness of a usually crowded public space due to the pandemic. Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Humanité René Philastre and Charles-Antoine Cambon - Set design for the second part of Victor Hugo's Les Burgraves, première production.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 09:58:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Les Burgraves
These set designs were meant to e turned into physical objects, the artistry is kind of a bonus. So, yes, but I'm not quite sure whether they were an artist guide or a construction guide. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Got it. Thanks for explaining. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Château Frontenac at night, Quebec Ville, Canada.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 02:55:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Château Frontenac at night, Quebec Ville, Canada
IMHO the colors of the trees are due to autumn. --Wilfredor (talk) 03:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
King of Hearts It was difficult to find a landmark, but I used the road asphalt as a landmark due to its neutral color, what do you think? --Wilfredor (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Parts of the leaves look grey, suggesting that there is ghosting from the HDR. I personally never use a sampled WB directly; I might use it as a starting point, but I always adjust it afterwards to make it look right to my eyes. -- King of ♥ 12:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I always try to take reference elements so that the photo is closer to the real colors, I will follow your recommendation to involve more my human factor and the appreciation of what I think the real colors were. On the other hand, with respect to the moved leaves, this is an area where the wind is common and except for specific conditions, the leaves will generally be moved, do you recommend any solution to this problem? One solution I see is to go there when the trees no longer have leaves. --Wilfredor (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Some blur in the leaves is fine; it's when you add HDR that it becomes problematic. You should choose only one frame to use, and then mask out all the others. As for which frame to use, it's a balancing act: the brighter the frame, the greater the blur, but the darker the frame, the more noise there is. -- King of ♥ 15:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean with "mask out all the others" ? --Wilfredor (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Some HDR programs allow you to tell it to ignore some of your exposures in some parts of the image that you choose. -- King of ♥ 17:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Has magic for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 08:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: tilted. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Despite some flaws, this is a super photo for me. Cmao20 (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I like it in general but some areas look too bright to me and therefore the result doesn't look so realistic, not sure how to vote here, to be honest, therefore Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Poco a poco (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Poco a poco, King of Hearts: I rebuilt from the raw again to fix the too bright areas. Please, let me know what do you think. Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me, thanks, Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Big improvement, but I think it's significant enough that people who voted to support should also be pinged. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very striking, but there's something unnatural feeling about certain parts that I can't explain. Firstly, the stars look like they've been added in artificially (their positions have moved when compared to your original version), and they have an odd mix of coma and what looks like JPEG artefacts. Secondly, parts of the sky have a blotchy/wavy appearance that doesn't look like anything I've seen in digital photos before. Thirdly, the tones have a feel similar to most recent estate agent photographs, where all areas have the same narrow range of luminance. Would I be right to guess that some sort of "HDR" or "AI" enhancement software has been used? It is a great scene, but this version doesn't feel believable to me. --Bobulous (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Bobulous I did not add any saturation or any kind of artificial fading or filters. The colors are actually naturals (you will find the RAW images here: 1, 2 and 3). I use Aurora HDR to assembling the images and Topaz Denoise to noise reduction and IMHO some lighting changes in the sky could be result of light pollution?. Finally I also apply a lens distortion correction (possibly the movement you mention)--Wilfredor (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)